Posted
by
Zonk
on Saturday March 17, 2007 @01:23PM
from the i-don't-want-to-go-on-the-cart dept.

A Chicago Sun-Times article passed to us by an anonymous reader pointed out the fact that the comedian Sinbad is still alive. This is notable, only insofar as Wikipedia thought otherwise. "Rumors began circulating last weekend regarding the posting, said Sinbad, who first got a telephone call from his daughter. The gossip quieted, but a few days later the 50-year-old entertainer said phone calls, text messages and e-mails started pouring in by the hundreds. 'Saturday I rose from the dead and then died again,' the Los Angeles-based entertainer said in a phone interview." Based on the article he seemed fairly okay with the mixup: 'It's gonna be more commonplace as the Internet opens up more and more. It's not that strange.' Wikipedia didn't comment for the Times piece, nor has it contacted the entertainer about the incident.

Since when is "some dipstick believed something they read on Wikipedia" news?

I can't help but darkly suspect that this is mostly about a major newspaper trying to declare, "You still need us". And I think that we do, neither blogs (opinion) nor Wikipedia (rumor) replace news from organizations that have an interest in being first (or at least timely) and in being correct.

But non-stories like this make me wonder if the Chicago Sun-Times is one of those organizations.

That's just a little too convoluted a bit of reasoning for me to believe. I'd be more inclined to think "It's a slow news day for the entertainment section, let's do something a bit controversial, and slam an online source in the process.... win-win for us"

It's 'news' to wikipedia supporters (i.e. much of slashdot's readers) if an event like this ends up in the Chicago Sun-Times. Sure it's not as important as a new game boy controller or something (sarcasm) but as we tally the number of times events like this happen (Siegenthaler, et al), we can see how a 'free policy' on the internet affects the real world, and how the public and politicians may react.

Also, notice how the newspaper said "Sinbad has said he has not yet received an apology from Wikipedia."

That would be fine if that were the case here. Slashdot (both as an entity and community) is simply anti-religion - anything faith-based is either shown in an unfavorable light (story selection by editors) or railed upon (by the community in comments). I think you'll find that religions are trashed equally across the board, and not just the "Religions that seek to spread the message of inferiority in atheists, women and homosexuals".A prime example. The grandparent post was modded offtopic. Yet your res

Hmmm, I disagree with Bill Maher here. We can and should tolerate intolerance. Intolerance doesn't in itself kill people. If someone is obeys the rule of law they should be tolerated even if they hold views that you find reprehensible.

I can't help but darkly suspect that this is mostly about a major newspaper trying to declare, "You still need us". And I think that we do, neither blogs (opinion) nor Wikipedia (rumor) replace news from organizations that have an interest in being first (or at least timely) and in being correct.

Yet even they make the same mistakes, from time to time...

I think I'll just sit and wait and watch how this whole media situation develops... who knows what it'll all look like in 10 years' time...

I can't help but darkly suspect that this is mostly about a major newspaper trying to declare, "You still need us". And I think that we do, neither blogs (opinion) nor Wikipedia (rumor) replace news from organizations that have an interest in being first (or at least timely) and in being correct.

Just a nit maybe, but I think you commingled a couple of organizations there that shouldn't be. I think we still need some organization(s) that focus on getting the news early (not necessarily first though) while a

Uh, you haven't been paying attention. They do that all the time, and in some cases with even better known celebrities. I'm sure you could Google a few instances if you are really interested.These are MINOR errors of course compared to actual IMPORTANT stories that the MSM have bungled. I'll just point out a few relatively recent ones that were "scandalous": (1) Jason Blair of the New York times who apparently wrote numerous "on the scene" interviews around the country without leaving his living room,

They often fail to even check facts, and even when they do, the quality of their output is limited by the fact that journalsists are experts in writing, and not experts in the subject matter they write about, which they often don't really understand.

And I think that we do, neither blogs (opinion) nor Wikipedia (rumor) replace news from organizations that have an interest in being first (or at least timely) and in being correct.

Wikipedia occasionaly makes mistakes, but it's way above the bias and falsehoods that pervade the rubbish which the media output. There's simply no comparison. Hell, even many blogs do a lot better (presumably you agree, else you wouldn't be reading Slashdot).

"Jimbo Jimbo Jimbo omg the Wikipedia article says Sinbad's dead!!! What do we do what do we do?????""Calm down, calm down. Just follow Wikipedia procedure. First, is Sinbad dead?"*long pause* "Okay, done. Now what?"

How many "kid defaces wikipedia, media reports wikipedia is wrong" cases are we going to see? Haven't people figured out by now that Wikipedia is edited by the public, and might occasionally be vandalized or show inaccurate information? Why are we treating every instance of vandalism as though it were some major media-worthy event?

If anything, this just encourages more kiddies to go do the same thing to more visible entries. "What can we make up about President Bush? Maybe we can get it on CNN like Bobbie did last week!"

This is dumb. The fact that things on the internet might not be true is old news. Wikipedia is no more a reliable source than the rest of the internet and for some reason traditional media just don't get this. Traditional media don't understand the internet and try to apply their rules against it. There's much more information available than traditional sources, but you must be much more vigilant in confirming that information is true.

And knowing all that, wikipedia is still a damn good source. So what if vandalism occurs. They are doing a pretty good job at controlling it. All these people who bitch and whine that wikipedia might not be true obviously don't use it on a regular basis. There's more information on wikipedia than most libraries and the info is a hell of a lot more updated. I'd go as far as to say wikipedia has the most (and most accurate for its volume) information in one single source than any other site on the internet. Complain if you want, but once you find me a source with better, more up to date, free, and accurate information as wikipedia, let me know. Until then I'll support them with my money.

At least wikipedia has peer review processes in place. If a piece of information is wrong in a traditional source, good luck getting it changed. It could take years for it to be changed and up to the sole discretion of one source.

I would argue that Wikipedia is actually a more reliable source than most of the rest of the Internet.
Wikipedia gets read regularly, and edited by the public, so if something is wrong, there is a chance it will be corrected. For much of the rest of the web, there is no such system.

Wikipedia, being anonymously edited, has no authority on any subject and must give you a reliable external source for any piece of information in its articles so that you can double check it with something that DOES have authority. Of course most of the time Wikipedia articles don't list any sources which makes them next to useless.

So Wikipedia has no authority, and is no good because it often but not always gives its sources - but every other source on the Internet, including the media, who spout bias rubb

I think the reason the media keeps reporting these things is they are trying their best to show the world internet sources may not be true; and wikipedia is their poster boy. There was a frontline special recently documenting traditional media and what's happened to it in the past few years. I think many in the traditional media are still trying to fight and discredit the internet as much as possible. They think it's a fad and people will return to traditional media. They don't understand that the internet is just as much a fundamental shift as the Gutenberg press. They need to embrace it correctly rather than fight it. I have yet to see a traditional outlet of information fully use the internet in the same way wikipedia has. Wikipedia has become the NY Times of the internet, while other media outlets have a bunch of homer simpson sites they use to throw their print stories on the web.

Where's the huge story every time they have to post a retraction in the media? It's not like Wikipedia's the only place that has errors anyway. Sometimes publications run false information and never correct it, sometimes they put spin on it, sometimes it's biased.

Tinfoil hat: Big media also has a vested interest in trying to discredit Wikipedia, because they have to make their own information seem real and be taken seriously even when it's not. If they discredit Wikipedia, it's harder for Joe Six to fin

Even better, what if the news outlets decide that this is an easy way to get ratings, reporting on inaccuracies in Wikipedia? Pretty soon they'll just skip to making volatile changes themselves, and be the first to report them. End Wikipedia.

Sinbad was found dead in his home this morning. There were not any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you did not enjoy his work, there is no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Holy crap, I didn't even know. What a bummer. I *loved* Platypus Man and just re-watched Big Steaming Pile a couple weeks ago. Well, I guess he can hang out with Kinison & Hicks now. Bye bye, Richard. Thanks for all the laughs.

Sinbad isn't funny... at all, but he was a pretty good sport about this. You'd think, "Hey, why shouldn't he be? It's kind of funny, and he's a comedian," but given previous people's reactions to Wikipedia innacuracies, I'd say this is deserving of at least a nod.

I'm nominating his article for deletion for lack of notability. Sinbad hasn't been notable since the early 90s, and if he refuses to stay dead, then we need to kill off his wiki entry as some satisfaction for all the pain he's caused us. I mean, have you seen Houseguest?

I think that more people (fallen stars) will try to use this as a way to get their name out and circulating again !
I don't doubt it for a second that P.R. firms find this a surefire way to get someone in the news.

So just how long until Slashdot troll postings make the news!? Seriously, I dread the day they start reporting things like "Are YOUR children in danger? Malicious internet 'trolls' may be posting links to goatse! We'll tell you how to protect your children via the SCO chairman's new Clean Port 80 anti-porn act... after a word from our sponsor, KY Inc."

This goes to show why Wikipedia should never be trusted as the only source for information.

Sinbad made an appearance on Leo LaPorte's "Screen Savers" program on ZDTV back around 1999 or 2000. ZDTV was the predecessor to TechTV a/k/a G4. During the interview, Sinbad mentioned he had a T1 line in his house in LA. Leo, who at that point was just getting comfortable with DSL, was green with envy, as were most tech junkies on the set.

So, while his career may not be at its zenith, I learned from that intervie